ROTTEN TOMATOES: Christopher Nolan Hints About "Joker" Approach

Christopher Nolan Hints About "Joker" Approach

by Scott Weinberg | August 24, 2006

Blogger / humorous journalist / serious movie geek Josh Horowitz recently had a sit-down with "Batman Begins" director Christopher Nolan in order to get some info on the filmmaker's next project, "The Prestige" ... but you just know that "The Dark Knight" (aka "Batman Begins 2") was going to come up at some point. And it did.

From Horowitz's Better Than Fudge blog: "Horowitz: Is there anything to be inferred from the name you’ve chosen for this film, "The Dark Knight"?
Nolan: Ultimately yes. [Laughs] But I’ll leave that for people to infer.

Horowitz: This is the cryptic portion of our chat.
Nolan: Yeah. [Laughs] The title has been chosen very specifically. It’s quite important to the film.

Horowitz: I take it [the Joker] will be less Cesar Romero and Jack Nicholson than the Joker we saw portrayed in a comic like "The Killing Joke"?
Nolan: Yes. I would certainly point to "The Killing Joke" but I also would point very much to the first two appearances of the Joker in the comic. If you look at where the Joker comes from there’s a very clear direction that fits what we’re doing very well."

You can click here for a little more info, but the bulk of the interview is being saved for an issue Mean Magazine, which hits newsstands on October 23rd.

Related Items

Celeb:	Christopher Nolan
	Cesar Romero
	Jack Nicholson
Movie:	The Prestige
	Batman Begins

(1-20 of 36 posts) | Reply

retroxxx3 writes:
on Aug 24 2006 03:01 PM

Different is always better.

(Reply to this)

synergyred writes:
on Aug 24 2006 03:23 PM

This could be good. Think about it, no one can out do Jack Nicholson's joker. It's much smarter to take a new direction on the character.

Now I just hope that this new direction makes a good movie.

(Reply to this)

IMAmoose24 writes:
on Aug 24 2006 05:29 PM

I think it will. We can trust him.

(Reply to this)

Ultimale069 writes:
on Aug 24 2006 05:31 PM

To be totally honest, Nicholson's Joker didn't thrill me too much. I will take Joker from Batman the animated series anyday. Mark Hamill had the laugh down, and he could deliver punchlines very sadisitcially and funny and the same time. Joker in the Animated series movies kicked ass, like Batman Beyond and Mask of the Phantasm. Next to Batman Begins, those are the best Batman films.

(Reply to this)

dylan21484nj writes:
on Aug 24 2006 05:31 PM

every little tidbit ups the anticipation more and more. Batman Begins may not have had the hype and box office it should have received, but the blame lies in the damage Batman & Robin did. but now that Batman Begins hit one out of the park, so anticipation of The Dark Knight is a lot higher. it's kinda like what happened with the X-Men movies. the first was good and a surprise hit, but wasn't a huge blockbuster because of the damage Batman & Robin did to comic book adaptations as a whole. but that movie came out and it was good, so X2 was a huge hit. i see that happening with The Dark Knight. god i can't wait for this movie!

(Reply to this)

hellhole writes:
on Aug 24 2006 05:36 PM

The Joker has really only been done justice once before on the big screen, and that was Mask Of The Phantasm. I'm anxious to see the more traditional Joker that Nolan seems to have in mind with this sequel.

(Reply to this)

MrJillis writes:
on Aug 24 2006 05:57 PM

In reply to this comment (#843028)
Then they went and ruined everything with X3, but I guess that was more Batman Forever than Batman and Robin, that will be X4 if they go ahead. I am sorry Brett Ratner and Schumacher are simply too similar.

(Reply to this)

Master King Sexington writes:
on Aug 24 2006 06:53 PM

In reply to this comment (#843030)
But Ratner did direct Red Dragon, so you have to give him a few props. I personally don't blame Ratner for X3. I blame the writers and Bryan Singer (and Cyclops) for abandoning the project for its suposed final chapter. Superman sucks anyways. Dark Knight will rule all

(Reply to this)

hellhole writes:
on Aug 24 2006 07:23 PM

The flaws of X3 were entirely the fault of the people who made the film, period. Singer left the franchise in the hands of others, to do with what they would, and they fumbled the ball several times throughout the production. If anything, X3 is a credit to how sure Singer's hand was in the earlier films, and yet another roughly-hewn action blockbuster on Ratner's resume.

And I would be remiss if I didn't point out that Superman rules you.

(Reply to this)

ndrage85 writes:
on Aug 24 2006 08:14 PM

In reply to this comment (#843031)
[b]Master King Sexington...[/b]
"I blame the writers and Bryan Singer for abandoning the project..." Singer didn't abandon anything, he told Fox he would gladly come back to do X3 if they would wait, but no, Fox wanted the money and they wanted it now. They thought the interest would be lost if they waited. i don't get this in Hollywood, I mean, just look at the history of great sequels, especially Fox. They released Aliens 7 years after Alien. It was successful and one of the greatest sequels ever. This, "we have to make a sequel before the fans forget," is bullshit. It's just an excuse to cash in on something that is good with a mediocre rushed follow up.

(Reply to this)

I Am Remote writes:
on Aug 24 2006 08:59 PM

X3 may not have been that good, but as a fan of the books and characters, Singer's job was just as shotty for me. The adaptation was pretty poor from the get go. A radiation machine? William Stryker? I don't buy it, not when looking at the source material. I was happy when he left.

Maybe in a long while, X-men will get a new director ala Nolan and get the "restart" it deserves.

(Reply to this)

bhairav writes:
on Aug 24 2006 09:28 PM

In reply to this comment (#843033)
Oh come on Ndrage85, you know well enough that the stiry for X3 SUCKED!! of course you have a BERY valid point, but X3 was made 3 years after X2, and 3 years is a lot of time in current hollywood.

The fact about Alien and Aliens, is that they were made quite long ago, when hollywood's respurces were les. I my point of view it was writers sho totally thrashed a SEXY franchise!!!

(Reply to this)

hellhole writes:
on Aug 24 2006 09:33 PM

In reply to this comment (#843034)
How is Magneto's radiation machine any more ridiculous than the microwave emitter? How are the changes to William Stryker any worse than the changes made to Ra's Al Ghul and the League Of Assassins/Shadows?

(Reply to this)

Elixir writes:
on Aug 24 2006 09:43 PM

X3 blew big time, lets not kid ourselves here. Singer was the best thing for Xmen, i wish he didn't decide to do superman until after x3... bastard.

anyways, Nolan has given us prob one of the best comic book movies ever, i trust him with the "dark knight"

(Reply to this)

Master King Sexington writes:
on Aug 24 2006 09:58 PM

In reply to this comment (#843038)
See, you agree with me about how Singer should have just done X3.

(Reply to this)

I Am Remote writes:
on Aug 25 2006 12:28 AM

In reply to this comment (#843037)
The radiation machine was absolutely ridiculous. The emitter was made by a weapons manufactuer. It's a believible threat. The plot from X-Men is underwhelming at best. The first issue, the first! Magneto hijacks a missile base. That is a movie, my friend, along with countless others with roots in the original stories. Don't waste my time with this looney toon stuff.

And the only reason I thought Stryker was a bad choice was the wealth of other ways they could have gone for a villain. Sentinels would have really pronounced the politics going on in these stories. Instead they made it about Wolverine. Yay.

You can't convince me, either by singer or ratner, that these movies capitalized on their potential. Singer accepted a poor adaptation, and then diluted the conflicts and politics of the stories (he's GREAT with conflict, see Superman) and ratner's mistakes are quite evident.

I'm looking forward to Dark Knight.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Aug 25 2006 05:55 AM

Well, as a guy who isn't steeped in comic book arcana, I found all three of the X-men movies more than acceptable (although 1 and 2 were better than 3) This is why I would never direct a comic book adapatation (not that anyone would ask me to) You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Try looking at these movies strictly as movies sometime and don't feel like they have to stick so close to your precious storyline. As long as it's entertaining, what does it matter.

As for the microwave emitter, if it instantly vaporized water, how come it didn't destroy every human it came in contact with? After all, we're 90% water.

(Reply to this)

TrevorReznick writes:
on Aug 25 2006 07:38 AM

In reply to this comment (#843042)
[b]I agree[/b]
I didnt think X3 horrendous but nonetheless it did leave a bit to be desired. I loved Batman Begins but the microwave emitter did puzzle me as you say it should excite the water molecules in a water supply but also in the humans around it. The only thing I could come up with is the fact that they stated that it utilised "focused microwaves" so in theory it may only excite water directly below it to the right/left etc.
Cant wait for the Dark Knight.

(Reply to this)

Crenshaw writes:
on Aug 25 2006 08:03 AM

Hey X geeks, this is a Bat thread. :-)

(Reply to this)

RottenTomatoes.com